No, BCL, he's undoubtedly taking some time to brush up on PCA and dendrochronology, reviewing all of Mann's publications and perhaps working on a demonstration statistical analysis, using Mann's data, which will show, beyond a shadow of a doubt, how he felt justified in calling Mann's research "fraudulent". After all, Steyn must have a very firm grounding in statistical climatology if he had the confidence to throw around terms like "fraudulent" in regard to the findings of an experienced scientist of Mann's calibre. Why, I'm surprised that Steyn hasn't been publishing on the subject himself.

Gee, that'd be great. The Canadian Mc's duo featuring in the discovery. That's be McKittrick, who couldn't tell the difference between radian and degrees in one of his early attempts to disprove global warming? When all that he had to do was plug his numbers into a stats package? And McIntyre, who was not only unable to find all of Mann's data, which was cunningly hidden in full view at multiple, freely-accessible sites on the web, but couldn't, huff and puff though he might, come up with a statistically supportable criticism of Mann's work that anyone but the credulous Right would accept? Yeah, you're right. The discovery will be great value. Steyn and his artisanal statisticians are going to take a royal hiding.

Hopefully, McIntyre and Wegman will get called as witnesses, and get to explain the 100:1 cherry-pick code atop bad statistics to manufacture the result desired.

Now, that's fraud, and it's in the code as discovered by Deep Climate. Wegman can get to explain how he used Army Research Office $ and Yasmin Said used alcoholism-fellowship money to do the Wegman Report, and then told the House it was pro bono.See FOOIA Facts series.

Lars spouts -- that he's "surprised Steyn hasn't been publishing on the subject himself". Of course as Lars knows due to Mann's and others efforts those who would publish scientific finds that dispute the party line are NOT accepted for publication.